Table of contents
Published October 27, 2026.
Research question and decision use
The review asks whether each restricted gift balance can be traced from a donor instruction to recorded spending and, where applicable, a documented release. The unit is one restricted fund at a defined close date. Leadership can use the result to repair files and tighten intake, but the review does not judge whether a particular program was worthwhile.
Population and eligibility
Eligible records are restricted gift lines with a nonzero balance or activity during the window. Capture the fund, gift date, agreement type, program code, and closing balance. Exclude unrestricted and board-designated funds, but keep a count of exclusions by reason so the boundary can be challenged.
Sampling protocol
Select funds using a random start within strata defined by restriction type and balance band, then add every fund above the materiality threshold. Record the seed, the threshold, and any replacement. Explain why a high-value fund was added outside the random draw.
Evidence dictionary
Fields include donor identity, gift date, stated purpose, time limit, spending condition, release event, release date, approver, ledger account, and evidence link. Missing means no document was found. Unknown means a document may exist but was not located. Not applicable means the restriction never required the field.
Classification rubric
Rate each chain complete, partial, or broken. Complete means the instruction, balance, and spending evidence agree. Partial means one link is missing or ambiguous. Broken means the ledger and the instruction conflict. Name the failed link rather than offering a general opinion about file quality.
Reviewer calibration
Two reviewers rate the same ten funds before the main pass. They compare the failed link, not just the overall rating, and resolve differences against the agreement text. Initial ratings stay in the workbook so a later reader can see where judgment changed after discussion.
Analysis plan
Report the number of funds reviewed, the share with a complete chain, and counts of missing and conflicting links. Show dollar balances beside counts, because a few large funds can dominate risk. Do not pool restriction types without displaying the mix.
Sensitivity and exception analysis
Recalculate excluding the largest fund and excluding funds opened before the current gift acceptance policy. If the conclusion changes, say so. Keep documentation gaps separate from accounting differences so a filing issue is not mistaken for a misstatement.
Privacy and role boundaries
Gift agreements can contain donor contact details and family financial information. Review only the fields needed for the chain, restrict the working file, and destroy extracts on a documented date. Do not circulate a fund-level exception list outside finance and development leads.
Limitations
The review observes documents available at the close date and cannot prove donor intent where the written record is silent. A missing agreement may reflect a lost file, a legacy practice, or a gift that never carried a restriction. The method does not replace legal or audit review.
Replication package
Keep the sampled fund list, agreement index, ledger extract, release evidence, rating sheet, and reconciliation. A later reviewer should be able to select a fund and rebuild the chain from the retained package without contacting the original preparer.
Conclusion
The practical output is a repair list with one owner per broken link and a date for recheck. A fund is not cured by adding a note to the ledger. The instruction or release evidence has to be located, or the exception has to be disclosed to the appropriate leader.